We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.

Shouldn't it make sense that there is a consequence and trade-off if you completely deforest an area though? Chop every forest because you want the free hammers and to make room for other improvements, well you just depleted a natural resource that previously offered a growth benefit and now no longer have access to it, so you must choose which yields that you value more. That was my line of reasoning. It's not just an arbitrary bonus if that's what you mean by "gamey".

Shouldn't it make sense that there is a consequence and trade-off if you completely deforest an area though? Chop every forest because you want the free hammers and to make room for other improvements, well you just depleted a natural resource that previously offered a growth benefit and now no longer have access to it, so you must choose which yields that you value more. That was my line of reasoning. It's not just an arbitrary bonus if that's what you mean by "gamey".

Click to expand...

I feel it gamey because improvements are intended to yield when being worked, not for free. The only exceptions are connected luxuries and strategics, but they give a resource to the empire, not the city.
And you really don't get to work many tiles. Once your population gets high, you have many interesting specialist slots. So keeping one forest in a corner doing nothing is not an interesting mechanic, from a gameplay point of view. It's too easy to do, normally doesn't interfere with your strategy, and it's unfair.

If you want to talk about enviromental concerns, that's a different matter. If you come from Civ IV maybe you are missing 'pollution'. In that game, keeping just one forested tile didn't work either. While talking about pollution, there are basically two kinds of pollutions that people notice: city pollution and global pollution. The first one is the most noticeable. Factories, any kind of human activity, in a dense city, lead to unhealthy air, water and living habits. This is already represented by the unhappiness caused by working a specialist slot. The second one, global pollution, is not implemented in game. We could say that global pollution is affected by the level of development of the land. The more tile improvements there are, the more nature is harmed, counted globally. The effects from this kind of pollution don't show in the game time range. Global warming is starting to show its effects in the XXIc. By 2000 most games are already finished.

But let's say you wish to implement some kind of a global warming menace to the game mechanics, and that this threat is going to show before the year 2000, so we can play with it. A modder could use the events mechanics, so when there are too many woldwide tile improvements, bad things begin to happen.

I feel it gamey because improvements are intended to yield when being worked, not for free. The only exceptions are connected luxuries and strategics, but they give a resource to the empire, not the city.
And you really don't get to work many tiles. Once your population gets high, you have many interesting specialist slots. So keeping one forest in a corner doing nothing is not an interesting mechanic, from a gameplay point of view. It's too easy to do, normally doesn't interfere with your strategy, and it's unfair.

If you want to talk about enviromental concerns, that's a different matter. If you come from Civ IV maybe you are missing 'pollution'. In that game, keeping just one forested tile didn't work either. While talking about pollution, there are basically two kinds of pollutions that people notice: city pollution and global pollution. The first one is the most noticeable. Factories, any kind of human activity, in a dense city, lead to unhealthy air, water and living habits. This is already represented by the unhappiness caused by working a specialist slot. The second one, global pollution, is not implemented in game. We could say that global pollution is affected by the level of development of the land. The more tile improvements there are, the more nature is harmed, counted globally. The effects from this kind of pollution don't show in the game time range. Global warming is starting to show its effects in the XXIc. By 2000 most games are already finished.

But let's say you wish to implement some kind of a global warming menace to the game mechanics, and that this threat is going to show before the year 2000, so we can play with it. A modder could use the events mechanics, so when there are too many woldwide tile improvements, bad things begin to happen.

Click to expand...

I see, I see. Environmental effects on that scale wasn't really what I had in mind. But excessive deforestation has other, more localised consequences for the regions which practice it, rather than global ones (land erosion and degradation, desertification and wildlife habitat destuction/diminished biodiversity). Just seemed appropriate that the Herbalist building would be affected by such consequences logically-speaking, and I wanted to tie it back to forests somehow in a way that didn't make forests powerhouses for both food and production as they were before the nerf.

That was the intent on putting the bonus on the building itself instead of on the tiles.

How about with my original idea, we rephrase to, Herbalist gains +3 if at least one worked forest is present? Still seem unfair?

I see, I see. Environmental effects on that scale wasn't really what I had in mind. But excessive deforestation has other, more localised consequences for the regions which practice it, rather than global ones (land erosion and degradation, desertification and wildlife habitat destuction/diminished biodiversity). Just seemed appropriate that the Herbalist building would be affected by such consequences logically-speaking, and I wanted to tie it back to forests somehow in a way that didn't make forests powerhouses for both food and production as they were before the nerf.

That was the intent on putting the bonus on the building itself instead of on the tiles.

How about with my original idea, we rephrase to, Herbalist gains +1 if at least one worked forest is present? Still seem unfair?

Click to expand...

There is a requirement for herbalist. It needs a forest, a jungle or a plantation to be allowed to build. This doesn't make a lot of sense, since there are herbalists in real life in pretty much any location, forest or no forest. But since herbalist was going to improve forests and jungles (now only jungles), that requirement prevented AI from building it when it was not a good building to build.

I don't know if you realize that missing just 1 food from herbalist in renaissance is nothing, so no player is going to change his strategy for the change you are proposing now. Deforestation usually doesn't happen until that age.

There is a requirement for herbalist. It needs a forest, a jungle or a plantation to be allowed to build. This doesn't make a lot of sense, since there are herbalists in real life in pretty much any location, forest or no forest. But since herbalist was going to improve forests and jungles (now only jungles), that requirement prevented AI from building it when it was not a good building to build.

I don't know if you realize that missing just 1 food from herbalist in renaissance is nothing, so no player is going to change his strategy for the change you are proposing now. Deforestation usually doesn't happen until that age.

Click to expand...

Oops, I meant +3 food not +1. Fixed OP.

Like I said, I would like to see herbalist become more of a staple again instead of this awkward niche it is in now. It bothers me that it benefits jungle tiles, but not forest; that simply doesn't make sense from a consistency standpoint.

Prior to the nerf, players had little incentive to chop forests; I don't think many people dispute that this was undesirable and broken. I'm not really looking to see players radically alter their strategy around the herbalist; my aim is to have it be viable in a wider variety of geographies, since as you stated yourself, they could be found in almost any location. But I also think it makes sense for the building to benefit from forests and jungles since those biomes possess the highest density of plant life in relation to everything else. It's just a matter of finding the right balance. That's what my proposal aims to accomplish.

What if we changed it so that herbalist gain the science from the tradition policy if there is a forest or jungle worked by the city (botanists studying the plant life for its medicinal value) and gave Ceremony something else instead?

Speaking of consistency, take a look on how most buildings work. Some give simple yields, like Monuments. Some improve the yields from other buildings, like Arenas. Some give a specialist slot, with a small yield, like Forges. Some give a scaling on population bonus, but this is very restricted, like wells and watermills. And finally, others give a bonus to tiles (terrain type, resource or improvement), so you need to be working them in order to benefit. It feels really out of place a building that gives yields only for having at least one forest tile, worked or not.

The very minimum would be a bonus per every x forest tiles worked by the city, but some people are complaining that this would be convoluted. And they might be right. This mechanic we see in pantheons, not in buildings.

Either way, forest are going to be acceptable, it just takes a bit longer, when the workshop is built. Forests starts are not difficult, you can chopp them fairly early if you need more food to plow farms. Jungle and tundra starts, on the other hand are quite harsh, and here is where herbalist is showing up. Extra something in jungle and tundra so your city doesn't stagnate. It used to be jungle and forests, but it made forests too good to ever chopp. Herbalist also buffs plantations, so you don't feel punished for chopping a forest or a jungle to get that plantation online. It's quite a good building. The only thing it needs to do now, in my opinion, is a little bit of help for tundra.

Speaking of consistency, take a look on how most buildings work. Some give simple yields, like Monuments. Some improve the yields from other buildings, like Arenas. Some give a specialist slot, with a small yield, like Forges. Some give a scaling on population bonus, but this is very restricted, like wells and watermills. And finally, others give a bonus to tiles (terrain type, resource or improvement), so you need to be working them in order to benefit. It feels really out of place a building that gives yields only for having at least one forest tile, worked or not.

The very minimum would be a bonus per every x forest tiles worked by the city, but some people are complaining that this would be convoluted. And they might be right. This mechanic we see in pantheons, not in buildings.

Click to expand...

I don't see anything particularly wrong with a building providing yields in a way that is unique as long as it is balanced and makes logical sense. My point about consistency is regarding the underlying logic of the building. I could really care less about it "breaking the mold" so to speak. I don't see that as a valid concern if the building doesn't break the game in the process. Here is how the herbalist functions currently:

If you build this, nearby jungles gain gold with the basis that jungles have abundant plant life which is has medicinal value...

Ok, so why not forests?

Sorry, that's not balanced. Can't do it.

It doesn't have to be that way. What I'm proposing is really not convoluted at all; it just doesn't fit the existing molds of buildings. I say so what? If anything, it adds an additional layer of flavor to the game to have a few buildings (that aren't wonders) with unique mechanics. And if it means sacrificing 100% uniformity in exchange for a more balanced, logically-consistent game, then I'd make that trade any day of the week. Basically, I say let's "think outside the box" and not arbitrarily restrict what buildings can and can't do because it's not consistent with how other buildings function.

Either way, forest are going to be acceptable, it just takes a bit longer, when the workshop is built. Forests starts are not difficult, you can chopp them fairly early if you need more food to plow farms. Jungle and tundra starts, on the other hand are quite harsh, and here is where herbalist is showing up. Extra something in jungle and tundra so your city doesn't stagnate. It used to be jungle and forests, but it made forests too good to ever chopp. Herbalist also buffs plantations, so you don't feel punished for chopping a forest or a jungle to get that plantation online. It's quite a good building. The only thing it needs to do now, in my opinion, is a little bit of help for tundra.

Click to expand...

Ok, so explain why the Herbalist must be the fulcrum on which Tundra is balanced? There's no reason it has to be the Herbalist as far as I can tell. It could just as easily be a different existing building, a technology unlock, or a new building altogether, such as the ones I proposed in the Tundra Balance thread (not saying it should be one of those, just using them as examples).

People seem to be tunnel visioning the Herbalist as the only way to address Tundra balance because the nerf to Herbalist hurt Tundra the most. It's complete fallacy to assume that because that's the case, that the only way to address Tundra balance is through changes to the building that previously helped it. It might well be the easiest fix, but there's no reason it has to be, especially if it precludes addressing other considerations on the building.

By the way, I don't think there is anything wrong with forests. My concern is purely with the Herbalist building. I think forests are fine as is, with the exception of Tundra.